- (1.) Heard Sri Hari Om Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 had issued an order dated 18th July, 1989 where it was provided that hundred per cent rebate on entertainment tax will be given to the cinema halls which will be constructed in the rural areas. In pursuance of the said order dated 18th July, 1989, the petitioner has moved an application for construction of a cinema hall in the local area Manhapur, District Gonda. While the application of the petitioner was pending, the said G.O. dated 18th July, 1989 was amended by another G.O. dated 14th May, 1992 where the tax was reduced to 75% for three years. By an order dated 16th August, 1993, the District Magistrate, Gonda has permitted the petitioner to construct the cinema hall known as 'Inder Lok'. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of license on 13th December, 1994 and that too was accepted and the license was granted on 4th February, 1995. However, while considering the grant-in-aid, the District Magistrate relied upon the amended G.O.dated 14th May, 1992 and instead of granting 100% grant-in-aid in pursuance to the original Circular, granted aid to the extent of 75%. Thus, grant-in-aid reduced from 100% to 75%.
(3.) While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had moved the application within stipulated period relying upon the original Circular (Annexure No. 1), the subsequent amendments shall not affect the right of the petitioner to receive the grant-in-aid. He submitted that in the principle of promissory estoppel, the petitioner shall be entitled for grant-in-aid on the amended Circular. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4502 of 1993 (M/B), Chandrika Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors. In the case of Chandrika Prasad Verma, the application for permission was moved on 9th July, 1991 and it was granted on 24th February, 1992. Submission is that in the present case, the application was moved on 24th June, 1991. Relying upon the original Circular with regard to grant-in-aid, it has been emphatically argued that right from constructing the picture hall till the grant of license as well as the construction of cinema hall, at no stage, the petitioner was informed that the grant-in-aid from 100% to 75% was reduced on the basis of amended Circular of the year 1992.;